[Passed] Proposal to fund development of NuBox (Peerbox port)

I am not sure at this point. I can not promise anything and can not even propose some number which would cover development costs.
All I can say is that I will keep working on this as much as my other errands allow.

I’m prepared to invest in Peerbox for Nu, but like to have an understanding where we end up in the imo ideal target state (with GUI).

I will get there, easy. No need for direct investment.
However expanding Peerbox into Nu territory would help with user base and funding for continual development.

Peerbox was easier to install and get started (and much better security) than compiling yourself. I have tried both. The old peerbox was not so good if you want to tinker with things because of the controls of ppcoind were in many places and the OS was not mainstream. But the new peerbox is supposed to have better arranged controls and use raspbian. So I think nubox has its value and if peerchemist can offer a period of accepting limited feature-improvement request and it can be maintained it’s worth teh 4000 nbt cost.

4 Likes

Putting voting for this motion on hold until we have cleared our liquidity issue unfortunately :frowning or getting nubox should asap be a priority in order to have more nodes minting?
So an important questions is: what minting diff raise should we expect to get from NuBox?

I am not a wizard, there is no way to know that. It will depend on how well can Nu marketing use the fact that they have this product and what is the best way to present it to the masses. What I can see from the comments around here it seems that it will at least make it easy for existing RaspberryPi users.
However there is large untaped RaspberryPi community out there who might want to get into cryptocurrency in what is still non-orthodox ways compared to mining like providing liquidity, parking and minting.

Porting Peerbox to NuNet is just a start for a bunch of stuff this platform can do.

As for liquidity problems. It seems that NuBits volume is none to zero across exchanges due to unprecedented Bitcoin stability. I hope NuNet will survive this period.

If community agrees we can change this from grant to motion and I can get payment from FLOT reserves in form of Bitcoin or Peercoin. I guess that would save some sell pressure on the peg.

1 Like

Impeding development saves some bucks, but prevents useful tools from being created.
I’d rather see an NSR sale than saving money here.
The liquidity operation costs a lot of money and there’s a lot of potential for saving, but that road isn’t followed seriously.
Why make cuts here instead?
This has the potential to increase minting.

2 Likes

Made the decision to add this to my datafeed at next opportunity even though the timing is not great. However given the liquidity situation I would like to see that you hold at least 50% in the custodial address if this passes until you have released NuBox. This would allow some spread in the liquidity which would be helpful. I’m fine with you just stating that so we don’t have to change the grant and start voting over again.

Here is my reasoning to support this grant:

  • NuBox gives shareholders the opportunity to mint more easy.
    This enables a stronger and more secure network and hopefully results in more participation.
  • NuBox gives shareholders the opportunity to configure headless clients more easy
    It will be a lot easier to configure voting for grants without just pointing to a datafeed. This will reduce the dependence on datafeeds which is a good thing imo.

  • NuBox makes it easier to run lightweight nodes
    The number of nodes is low and needs to increase to make the network more resilient.

I also like to mention that I support cross-development between the Peercoin, NuBits and B&C community. Going forward we will need to sustain a healthy ecosystem for Nu. Each community is still too small to drive development entirely alone. Collaboration and re-use between the communities to some extent is therefore essential I believe. This is also the idea behind open-source. Let’s exploit what we have.

4 Likes

I see not problem with that.

2 Likes

@peerchemist

Once I got that cleared I ll vote.

I quoted this last time you asked.

Tl;dr 2 weeks for feature requests and bug fixes then 1 year of keeping it up to date and compatible. Afterwards a new contract will be required.

1 Like

ok :slight_smile:
Sorry for the redundancy then.
but 2w could be too short.
What happens if a bug is discovered after 3w from release?

EDIT

My email kept buzzing in last few minutes.

I am sorry, do we have a problem with language barrier here? I have clearly stated all what you have just asked in the OP and you could deduct the answer from the entire thread.

  • Two weeks for feature requests
  • Year for bugfixes

3w < 1y -> therefore bug gets fixed.

1 Like

Tks for your clarification.

Just one last thing.[quote=“peerchemist, post:84, topic:3753”]
Porting Peerbox to NuNet is just a start for a bunch of stuff this platform can do
[/quote]

I would like to make it clear that although I support cross development between peercoin and nu and although I am grateful to peercoin, I think this grant regards first and foremost nu. In other words, it intends to foster the spreading of Nu, first and foremost. Of course, if it can help peer oin’s development as well, that would be great. :slight_smile:

Voted.

1 Like

In the next few days I will start a “NuBox testing thread” which will serve as communication channel between me and community while I am implementing NuBox. There users will be able to advise and ask for features.
What needs to be done first is nubits package for Debian, and I will start by doing that, after it is doen porting peerbox utility and support packages will follow.

As promised I have kept 2k NBT back, by parking them for 25 days.

I ask the moderator to lock this thread.

Can you edit the title to say [Passed] instead of [Voting]?